[governance] Re: [bestbits] Call for making the IGF permanent

[Oksana Prykhodko]

INGO European Media Platform supports this call.
Best regards,
Oksana
On Sep 1, 2014 1:38 PM, "Mawaki Chango" <kichango at gmail.com> wrote:

> Hi all:
>
> Jeanette, your post has come through onto the IGC list as far as I can see.
>
> To respond to the whole thread so far, I think a simple call for
> permanency would be weak. Doesn't the NETmundial declaration already talk
> about strengthening IGF? So at the very least, a multistakeholder call
> would have to include permanent IGF with strengthened support. And unless
> this is threat to maintaining cohesion across stakeholder groups which
> might be willing to support such call, I'd go as far as introducing
> language along the lines of what Anne Jellema proposes (expanded, stable,
> predictable funding that is transparently accounted for.)
>
> If there are stakeholders who are against the latter language, or if there
> are broader points (as alluded to earlier) which are beyond the above then
> we'll need to have two statements. But the minimum in my view, even for a
> multistakeholder call, would have to be for a permanent IGF with
> strengthened and sustainable support.
>
> Mawaki
>
>
>
> On Mon, Sep 1, 2014 at 8:33 AM, Jeanette Hofmann <jeanette at wzb.eu> wrote:
>
>> Hi all,
>>
>> at the BB meeting yesterday we discussed the idea of a BB statement that
>> would ask the UN to make the IGF a permanent body instead of  renewing its
>> mandate for another limited term of 5 or 10 years.
>> This idea found broad support among the attendees of the BB meeting.
>>
>> Later on I discussed the content of such a statement with other
>> stakeholders at the IGF and I got the impression that we might be able to
>> draft a cross-stakeholder statement together with the technical community
>> and the private sector. (Individual governments support such a statement
>> too but I am not sure it would be possible within the few days available to
>> coordiante enough signatures by governments to make this an all inclusive
>> statement.)
>>
>> Right now, a multi-stakeholder statement coming out of this IGF is only
>> an idea that needs further exploration within the respective groups. So,
>> with this email to the bb list and the IGC list I am asking for your
>> opinions to find out if such a cross-stakeholder statement would find
>> support in civil society.
>>
>> jeanette
>>
>> P.S. Lately, I have been unable to post to the IGC list. If this email
>> does not appear on the IGC list, would someone be so kind to forward it?
>>
>> ____________________________________________________________
>> You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>>      bestbits at lists.bestbits.net.
>> To unsubscribe or change your settings, visit:
>>      http://lists.bestbits.net/wws/info/bestbits
>>
>
>
> ____________________________________________________________
> You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>      governance at lists.igcaucus.org
> To be removed from the list, visit:
>      http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing
>
> For all other list information and functions, see:
>      http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance
> To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see:
>      http://www.igcaucus.org/
>
> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t
>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20140901/c799830c/attachment.htm>
-------------- next part --------------
____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.igcaucus.org
To be removed from the list, visit:
     http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing

For all other list information and functions, see:
     http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance
To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see:
     http://www.igcaucus.org/

Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t